Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
United States v. East Hampton Housing Authority, et al. (E.D.N.Y.)
United States v. Hyundai Capital America (C.D. Cal.)
On May 8, 2024, the United States filed a complaint and a proposed consent order in United States v. Hyundai Capital America (C.D. Cal.). The complaint alleges that the defendant violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by repossessing 26 motor vehicles leased or owned by SCRA-protected servicemembers without first obtaining the required court orders. The proposed consent order, which still must be approved by the court, requires the defendant to develop policies and procedures for motor vehicle possessions that comply with the SCRA; provide SCRA compliance training to key employees; pay $10,000 plus any lost equity and provide credit repair to affected servicemembers; and pay a civil penalty of $74,941.
Press Release 5/9/24
United States v. Leaf Property Investments, LLC (E.D. Wis.)
On May 2, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Leaf Property Investments, LLC (E.D. Wis.). The complaint, which was filed on September 9, 2022, alleged that Dennis Parker, the on-site manager of a 19-unit rooming house in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, violated the Fair Housing Act by harassing a male tenant because of the tenant’s sex, including the tenant’s sexual orientation, and because of the tenant’s disability. The complaint alleges that Defendant Parker engaged in verbal and virtual harassment, as well as one instance of punching the tenant in the groin and threatening to evict him in retaliation for reporting the harassment to the police. The complaint also named as defendants Leaf Property Investments, LLC and Sam Leaf (the “Leaf defendants”), who own the property where the harassment occurred. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint from the complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination, and the tenant elected to have the matter litigated in federal court. The consent order requires defendants to pay the tenant $40,000 in damages, prohibits Dennis Parker from managing residential properties and from contacting the tenant, requires the Leaf defendants to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, and requires the Leaf defendants to undergo fair housing training.
United States v. Woodlands at Montgomery LP, et al. (S.D. Ga.)
On April 11, 2024, the United States filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Woodlands at Montgomery LP, et al. (S.D. Ga.) alleging that the owner and manager of an apartment complex in Savannah, Georgia violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(2) and (f)(3)(B) by failing to grant a disabled tenant’s request to transfer to a ground-floor unit and threatening her with an early lease termination fee. The complaint also names the local housing authority and a housing relocation service as defendants. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
Consent Order - United States v. Carlos Vazquez (D. P.R.)
On April 9, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Carlos Vazquez, et al. (D.P.R). The complaint in this Fair Housing Act “election” case, which was filed on April 3, 2024, alleges that defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by making discriminatory statements to a former tenant that expressed a preference against renting to him because of his disability, rescinding an offer to extend the former tenant’s lease because of his disability, and interfering with the former tenant’s right to pursue a reasonable accommodation. The consent order requires defendants to pay $5,000 in damages to the former tenant and waive any claims against him for outstanding unpaid rent or other amounts, adopt a non-discrimination policy, obtain fair housing training, and submit periodic reports to the United States. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
DHD Jessamine, LLC v. Florence County et al. (D.S.C.)
On April 2, 2024, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in DHD Jessamine, LLC v. Florence County, South Carolina, et al. (D.S.C.), a case that includes claims brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. Constitution, and state law. The Plaintiff alleges, in part, that Defendants violated the FHA when Florence County passed an ordinance to prevent the development of Plaintiff’s proposed Low-Income Housing Tax Credit apartment complex based on discriminatory objections raised by community members. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims. In its Statement of Interest, the United States argues that the Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s FHA claims. First, the United States explains that Defendants misstate the legal standard for assessing disparate treatment FHA claims and that Plaintiff has put forth circumstantial evidence that may be indicative of discriminatory animus. Next, the United States explains the correct legal framework for assessing disparate impact FHA claims. Applying the correct legal standard, Florence County’s ordinance is the kind of “policy” that may cause a disparate impact, and Defendants fail to counter Plaintiff’s arguments and evidence that Florence County’s ordinance was passed for illegitimate reasons and disproportionately affects Black residents.
Complaint - United States v. Belle Shore Condominium LLC (E.D. N.Y.)
On April 1, 2024, the United States Attorney’s Office filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Belle Shore Condominium LLC, et al. (E.D.N.Y.), alleging that the owner and property managers of a condominium complex in Rockaway Park, New York violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), (f)(2), and (f)(3)(B) by refusing to provide a black buyer with an accessible parking space even though it had agreed earlier to provide an accessible parking space to a white resident. Delkap Management, Inc. and Joei Losito are also named as defendants in the case. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
Chabad Jewish Center of The Big Island v. County of Hawaii (D. Haw.)
On March 29, 2024, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Chabad Jewish Center of the Big Island, et al. v. County of Hawaii, et al. (D. Haw.), a case brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Plaintiffs, a Chabad Jewish Center and its Rabbi, Levi Gerlitzky, filed their complaint against the County of Hawaii and its planning director after the County assessed thousands of dollars in fines against Plaintiffs and prohibited them from operating a house of worship in a residential zone without a use permit, even though analogous nonreligious meeting facilities do not require a use permit. The complaint, filed in conjunction with a motion for preliminary injunction, alleges that the County’s zoning code and conduct has substantially burdened Plaintiffs’ religious exercise and treats Plaintiffs’ worse than comparable secular uses in violation of RLUIPA. In its Statement of Interest, the United States supports Plaintiffs’ argument that the Hawaii County zoning code, on its face, treats religious uses less favorably than nonreligious assembly uses, in violation of RLUIPA’s equal terms provision.
United States v. Jimmie Bell et al. (W.D. Mo.)
On March 25, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Jimmie Bell et al. (W.D. Mo.). The “election” complaint alleges that Jimmie Bell, the owner and manager of residential rental properties in Springfield, Missouri, discriminated on the basis of sex, in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), by sexually harassing a female tenant from 2017 through 2019. The United States’ complaint also included a “group of persons” claim under the Fair Housing Act, based on additional victims that were identified during the Department’s investigation. The case was referred to the Division after HUD received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
United States v. Ariel Solis, et al. (D.N.M.)
On March 6, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Ariel Solis, et al. (D.N.M.). The complaint alleges that between 2010 and 2022, Ariel Solis, a property manager in Albuquerque, New Mexico, engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment against female tenants at St. Anthony Plaza Apartments in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The lawsuit further alleges that Solis’s employer, PacifiCap Properties Group, LLC, and the owners of St. Anthony Plaza, St. Anthony Limited Partnership and PacifiCap Holdings XXXVIII, LLC, are vicariously liable for Solis’s discriminatory conduct because Solis acted as their agent when he sexually harassed tenants at St. Anthony Plaza.
United States v. First National Bank of Pennsylvania (M.D. N.C.)
On February 13, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. First National Bank of Pennsylvania, et al. (M.D.N.C.). The complaint, which was filed on February 5, 2024, by the United States and North Carolina Department of Justice, alleges that First National Bank of Pennsylvania (including as successor in interest to Yadkin Bank, which it acquired in 2017) violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act by engaging in unlawful redlining in its service areas in the Charlotte and Winston-Salem, North Carolina markets. Specifically, among other things, the complaint alleges the bank located and maintained nearly all of its branches and mortgage loan officers outside of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, relied on mortgage loan officers concentrated in majority-white areas as the primary source of new loan applications, and maintained inadequate internal fair lending policies and procedures to ensure that the bank was positioned to provide equal access to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. As a result, the bank’s peers generated lending activity in those neighborhoods at two to four times the rate of other banks with similar lending volume. The consent order requires the defendant to invest at least $11.75 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase credit opportunities for residents of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Charlotte and Winston-Salem; spend $1 million on community partnerships to provide services to residents of those neighborhoods; spend $750,000 for advertising, outreach, consumer financial education and credit counseling focused on those neighborhoods; open two new branches in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Charlotte and one such branch in Winston-Salem; ensure that at least two mortgage bankers and two community homeownership specialists are assigned to solicit loan applications from majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Charlotte and Winston-Salem; and employ a Director of Community Lending who will oversee the continued development of lending in communities of color in North Carolina. First National Bank of Pennsylvania also agreed to complete a community credit needs assessment, to assess and report on its fair lending program; and to train staff on the bank’s obligations under the consent order.
United States v. Patriot Bank (W.D. Tenn.)
On January 30, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Patriot Bank (W.D. Tenn.). The complaint, which was filed January 17, 2024, alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) specifically that, from 2015 through 2020, Patriot Bank engaged in unlawful redlining in its self-designated service area in Memphis, Tennessee and discriminated on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The consent order requires Patriot to invest at least $1.3 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase access to home mortgage, home improvement, and home refinance loans for residents of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Memphis. Additionally, in those same neighborhoods, Patriot will spend at least $375,000 for advertising, outreach, and consumer financial education and counseling; spend $225,000 to develop community partnerships to provide services that increase access to residential mortgage credit; employ two loan officers dedicated to serving those communities of color in Memphis and a Director of Community Lending who will oversee the continued development of lending in those communities; and continually assess the credit needs of the communities.